What strikes me about these performances, and the music on this boxset in general, is how well it's all aged. It seems more contemporary now than it did 37 years ago. The only thing that has aged badly are some of Bob's crackpot sermons. When I heard they were cut from even the deluxe set I first thought it was a terrible idea---would you cut the Tom Thumb story from Live '66? But re-hearing these performances, and feeling their power and increasing relevance not only in terms of message but also music, I'm glad some of the dodgy sermons were cut. Some sermons were fine, but others dovetail a little too closely with the intolerance we heard from the fundamentalist preachers that came to dominate right-wing politics in subsequent years. Re-cutting these performances with new sermons--ones that preach humility above all and are in fact closer to the message of the songs themselves--refreshes the entire enterprise and almost creates a whole new work. It is stronger and more relevant than the original presentation, and the music stands on its own integrity. Maybe it's because I'm also a big fan of Luc Sante and Michael Shannon, but the new sermons really work for me in this context. I'm not exactly what you would call a "devout" person--far from it. But I find this moving and compelling. The only thing that bugs me is that the soundtrack is out of sync at times, and it doesn't always sit comfortably with the visual. The dry mixes have no "room" sound, and sound like they're in front of the picture instead of emanating from the picture. This sort of cut and paste was much more skillfully done in No Direction Home. But I quibble. It's really a great work.

We should do a livestream of the movie, on a website with a chatroom we could discuss in real time. (websites like Gaze or Sinaptop )

That is a really good idea!

I just don't know how to extract the movie from my dvd. I need the actual movie file on my computer in order to live stream it... Who has the whole movie + extras on their computer ? Menoslobos since you previously uploaded the movie on youtube I guess you have the movie on your computer, can you please help me ?

Finally watched the movie last night. It's, um, terrible. Such a missed opportunity. The sermons are completely out of place, and while Michael Shannon does a good impression of a preacher, they don't enlighten us at all on the actual subject of the so-called documentary: Bob Dylan's conversion to Christianity. Dylan's own sermons have been excised as a typical exercise in Dylanesque rewriting of his own history. Does he think we will forget how far out there he got with his apocalyptic sermonizing? A true, "No Direction Home" style documentary on this era could have been wonderful, with interviews with the key figures such as people from the Vineyard church group he joined, his backup singers, musicians, critics. What we got instead was a few good musical performances and some Sunday morning TV sermons. A total waste of time. I want my money back.

Finally watched the movie last night. It's, um, terrible. Such a missed opportunity. The sermons are completely out of place, and while Michael Shannon does a good impression of a preacher, they don't enlighten us at all on the actual subject of the so-called documentary: Bob Dylan's conversion to Christianity. Dylan's own sermons have been excised as a typical exercise in Dylanesque rewriting of his own history. Does he think we will forget how far out there he got with his apocalyptic sermonizing? A true, "No Direction Home" style documentary on this era could have been wonderful, with interviews with the key figures such as people from the Vineyard church group he joined, his backup singers, musicians, critics. What we got instead was a few good musical performances and some Sunday morning TV sermons. A total waste of time. I want my money back.

You are, um, wrong.It’s better every time I watch it, including the sermons.Take heed, brother.

Joined: Wed June 6th, 2007, 20:48 GMTPosts: 9342Location: In the land of the midnight sun

josemesa wrote:

Finally watched the movie last night. It's, um, terrible. Such a missed opportunity. The sermons are completely out of place, and while Michael Shannon does a good impression of a preacher, they don't enlighten us at all on the actual subject of the so-called documentary: Bob Dylan's conversion to Christianity. Dylan's own sermons have been excised as a typical exercise in Dylanesque rewriting of his own history. Does he think we will forget how far out there he got with his apocalyptic sermonizing? A true, "No Direction Home" style documentary on this era could have been wonderful, with interviews with the key figures such as people from the Vineyard church group he joined, his backup singers, musicians, critics. What we got instead was a few good musical performances and some Sunday morning TV sermons. A total waste of time. I want my money back.

I just watched the DVD and I agree.However I though the sermons was poorly acted and poorly directed, and as you said a total waste of time.And it's all a bunch of nonsense to me .. "your body is the temple of God" ... A No Direction Home-type documentary would have been much betterand given us a more complete perspective of this period in Dylan's career.

The best part of this movie is Bob's harmonica solo in What Can I Do For Youand the Clyde-duet of Abraham, Martin and John at the end.

If those sermons were well acted and well directed, would it have made a difference? Or was it merely the fact that they were included? I heard one guy say that he thought those sermons were not an effective representation of the Gospel; instead, he thought they were merely moralizing. Even drawing that distinction was enough to ponder upon for a lifetime or more.

Do you roll your eyes at the saying...or prospect...or assertion...that "your body is the temple of God" because it's straight from the Good Book? It most likely only makes sense if you're running with that crowd, not that that crowd is "walking the walk" perfectly. According to the wisdom of the world, these words are, indeed, foolishness. If you prefer, our man gave us a variation: "Your mind is your temple, keep it beautiful and free / Don't let an egg get laid in it by something you can't see.

I take your words about Dylan's harmonica solo on "What Can I Do For You?" and the duet with Clydie King on that Dick Holler song "Abraham, Martin and John" to heart. Derek Barker, in that very valuable book--"The Songs He Didn't Write: Bob Dylan Under the Influence"--noted that the song "was instrumental in reviving Dion's flagging career." That was back in 1968 when there was no reviving MLK and RFK and America herself seemed about ready to implode. For the record, Dion had his Jesus experience about a decade later, pretty much around the same season when our man was creating all that material that led to this "Trouble No More" DVD in the first place.

Joined: Wed June 6th, 2007, 20:48 GMTPosts: 9342Location: In the land of the midnight sun

cloudofwit wrote:

If those sermons were well acted and well directed, would it have made a difference? Or was it merely the fact that they were included? I heard one guy say that he thought those sermons were not an effective representation of the Gospel; instead, he thought they were merely moralizing. Even drawing that distinction was enough to ponder upon for a lifetime or more.

Yes, I think it would have made a little bit of a difference. The fact that it was supposed to look like he preached to a full church/or someone else than the viewer wasn't convincing at all. Why not just speak directly to the camera or at least but some people in the background/background noise.And he was often out of frame and the lighting could have been much better.But in my opinion, if they had excluded the sermons and put all the extras in there instead, it would have worked more like a full concert footage. Or like josemesa said, interviews with key figures from this period.

cloudofwit wrote:

Do you roll your eyes at the saying...or prospect...or assertion...that "your body is the temple of God" because it's straight from the Good Book? It most likely only makes sense if you're running with that crowd, not that that crowd is "walking the walk" perfectly. According to the wisdom of the world, these words are, indeed, foolishness. If you prefer, our man gave us a variation: "Your mind is your temple, keep it beautiful and free / Don't let an egg get laid in it by something you can't see.

I roll my eyes at most of the verses from the Bible or any religious book. Like I said it's all nonsense to me. It's just an old piece of literature, not an instruction on how to live your life and what to believe, they didn't know any better at that time.Bob's quote is indeed much more sensible, it's good he became rational again, and the preaching in 79-81 was just a phase.

I’m one of the least religiously educated on here, and with all due respect I ask:How do you know this?[/quote]

Put simply, he doesn't. Theodore Roosevelt said, 'No other book of any kind written in the English language has ever so affected the whole life of a people'.

The Bible permeates the lives of those who live in western society on every kind of level, the ten commandments are the primary source of our laws. The President swears the oath of allegiance with his left hand on the Bible. From the words inscribed on the Liberty Bell to so many of the sayings each of us use on a daily basis, the text of the Bible, like the words of Shakespeare have entered our language to the point where we no longer know where they originally came from.

That is not to say that the Bible has the same influence that it once had, but it is still influential. As for the sermons delivered in the video, the empty church, may intentionally be a sign of the times. Interest in religion waxes and wanes, when the chips are down prayer comes easily to the lips of many and churches fill.

Joined: Wed June 6th, 2007, 20:48 GMTPosts: 9342Location: In the land of the midnight sun

Still Go Barefoot wrote:

SirDogg wrote:

It's just an old piece of literature, not an instruction on how to live your life and what to believe, they didn't know any better at that time.

I’m one of the least religiously educated on here, and with all due respect I ask:How do you know this?

Because the Earth was flat, and people split seas, and walked on water, and had virgin births,and talked to burning bushes, and built boats to hold approx. 1,25 million different species,and according to another holy book, flew on winged horses.

As Richard Dawkins put it, "The Bible should be taught, but emphatically not as reality. It is fiction, myth, poetry, anything but reality. As such it needs to be taught because it underlies so much of our literature and our culture."

It's just an old piece of literature, not an instruction on how to live your life and what to believe, they didn't know any better at that time.

Because the Earth was flat, and people split seas, and walked on water, and had virgin births,and talked to burning bushes, and built boats to hold approx. 1,25 million different species,and according to another holy book, flew on winged horses.

As Richard Dawkins put it, "The Bible should be taught, but emphatically not as reality. It is fiction, myth, poetry, anything but reality. As such it needs to be taught because it underlies so much of our literature and our culture."

Put we're getting off topic here.[/quote]

Unlike Dawkins' science, those events have not yet been 'proven' to be fiction. Additionally, Dawkins makes the category error that those events which are, by definition, not amenable to physical laws, having transcended them, should in fact be found to obey them. Kurt Godel, by orders of magnitude a far greater mind than Dawkins, actually did prove that this universe is either incomplete or irrational (Godel's Incompleteness Theorem). If irrational, all communication is self-denying and futile. If incomplete, this implies that there are axioms beyond the universe itself, indicating a higher reality which is not bound by those laws which govern the material universe itself. Godel himself, an atheist from a family of them, decided to opt for rationality and that this necessitated he become a theist.

Modern science has yet to face up to the consequences of quantum physics. These are that it is the physical world which is of questionable reality-Neils Bohr said of the quantum world (that is, that of protons, electrons and all those 'particles' that they're busily searching for with ludicrously expensive 'particle generators') that 'it doesn't exist'. Werner Heisenberg, who discovered the 'uncertainty' principle, defined the quantum world as existing 'somewhere between possibility and actuality'.

Modern science urgently needs a new paradigm to explain Reality. I suggest you read these people and forget about making glib metaphysical statements founded on fourth-rate minds such as Dawkins.

We're dealing with Mystery here. Applying Occam's Razor to the problem, we should not multiply mystery beyond necessity.

Personally, I'm not fussed about video - I'm with Paul Williams when he said that being there in person is best, but if can't be, then audio is next best. Which is why I said (in the other thread), I'd rather they'd left it out of BS13, and issued it as a separate product - preferably the full concert, Bob's sermons, the girls' mini-sets and all. I may or may not have bought it, but I wouldn't watch it more than once anyway.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum